Hmmm......hard riddle........
The Star Citizen Thread v5
- Thread starter Brett C
- Start date
- Status
Hmmm......hard riddle........
I agree with you, in part, on this. However, you are forgetting one simple thing: they were front-loaded $147 million to deliver specifically what they promised. There is simply no getting around that. You can't promise to build me a house and a pool, then I see parts of a house - no dug out for the pool - and say I can't hold you accountable. Because reasons.
This distinction is why we get into so many arguments because it's almost as if some people aren't willing to admit that what's going on with Star Citizen, simply cannot be compared to any other game project - let alone one that's not similarly funded.
The bad part is that Chris brought all this on himself. As always. All he had to do was build the smaller game promised. Instead, once he figured out how to tape into the Dream psyche of certain people, he went for the money instead.
Jenner
I wish I was English like my hero Tj.
You are seriously over estimating the maturity level of this thread, old friend.
Looks at avatar, something something "glass houses".
Hey you are all forgetting the fact that I cannot twist my Cobra M5 stick to the yaw function. Even though windows detects it, and it works flawlessly in Elite Dangerous. SC some how failes to use the twist yaw. Grrrrrrr I want a refund.
Eddie Bravo was right by the way!
Eddie Bravo was right by the way!
Last edited:
Jenner
I wish I was English like my hero Tj.
Hey that was pretty good!
I don't really see the connection between the Banu and some tree alien thing from another series, (or human faces on trees at all in mythology for that matter, when did the "Groot" become the origin of that idea?)
The Banu look like generic wrinkly Alien, akin to the concept art of Ra from Star Gate (the movie not series)
The Banu look like generic wrinkly Alien, akin to the concept art of Ra from Star Gate (the movie not series)
Accepted and regarding CR and his management cadre I have zero sympathy nor interest in defending them. Their dev team and employees on the other hand deserve some scope for understanding. I also have sympathy for the backers who genuinely want to see something come from this and feel for them when their dreams are stomped all over by doomsayers. There is, I believe, a distinction to be made between management and the game/the staff creating it. A little compassion goes a long way IMO.
Is that a joke? That kind of information should be done in 2012!
Shhhhhhh - Genuine Roberts hasn't invented Starglider 2 yet!
Just wait until he does - it'll be epic!
How is anything said in this thread stomping on their dreams? It is up to CR and CIG to create the game, it is up to them to release those dreams, it is them that created those dreams. All this thread does is point out what is happening, the cause of that is squarely on CIG. This is just another case of you trying to blame the messenger. We get it you don't like hearing negative things about CIG, well perhaps instead of complaining about people pointing out the negative aspects of the company and development you should take that complaining to the company that is creating the poor content.
Keep in mind, if it is that hard for you to read criticism of the game and development there is nothing forcing you to read this thread.
Last edited:
Companies fold all the time. That's terrible for the employee's and they have my sympathy but that doesn't negate why or how the companies failing. It also doesn't elevate the company beyond criticism, if anything it adds another level to the criticism in that they have failed their employee's as well as their customers. Do you really think dreams really apply to this ?, it's just a game a form of entertainment even if it hit all targets and was the best game ever it would still just be a form of entertainment. Doomsaying's a problem ?, there are some absolutely glaring problems with star citizen and any number of huge red flags, talking about that isn't doomsaying it's realism.
In terms of compassion, is it better to silence critics and allow gamers to throw good money after bad after having been misled, or should people be aware that all the talk of the BDSSE and the game to end all games is to put it mildly somewhat overblown. My compassion in this is firmly with the poor suckers buying grey-market ships with no chance at a refund, and to a lesser degree CiG's direct customers.
The value of this forum (as I've probably said before) is that it's one of the few places where differing views about Star Citizen are permitted. The gaming press seems incapable of making anything of what may well soon become the Watergate of gaming. There's precious little consumer advice available for new backers (to whom the advice should be "don't pay a penny until there's a finished product"). There certainly appear to be some backers with a compulsion to put more money into the game based on vague promises that things will get better. I suspect that's a behaviour similar to a gambling addiction.
It seems to me that the Marketing Division of CIG has long been overhyping the game, and I think I agree with Mr Smart that there was a time early on when CIG could have decided to deliver a game as specified, and they chose the other course, to bloat the scope with ever more improbable commitments in exchange for ever more infeasibly large amounts of backers' money. The number of legal entities that CIG has created, and round which backers' money has been distributed, worries me, a lot.
The thing though is: there are an awful lot of people with money in this game. We don't want them to be out-of-pocket, to have paid for a product they never get. Some people can apply for and get refunds, but there cannot possibly be more than a few million dollars left in CIG's coffers. They've spent most of it, much of it apparently iterating round developing the same features over and over again. Renting offices. Paying a large wage bill. Flying round the world.
So for the people that can't get refunds (the majority of backers), what is best? Some sort of game - perhaps just Squadron 42 - or nothing at all to show for their purchase? I know there's significant scepticism about CIG's ability to deliver anything at all, but if we suspend out collective disbelief for a minute, is there a possibility that they could ship at least something, something that would give backers a small fraction of the value of their pledges back in the form of a playable game? Even if the game is only a so-so, not terribly good space sim?
If there is that chance, then it seems wrong to argue against it. It's not arguing that the CIG management shouldn't be held accountable for their decisions, not at all. It's not arguing that anyone should invest a penny more: in my opinion it would be foolish to do so. But it is arguing that we should seek some sort of return for those who have money in the game.
Set against all that, I have deep misgivings about the new referral program drive (which seems to have been badly received by many backers). I wonder if CIG is getting very short of cash indeed. If they are, then it may be too late. There may be nothing that can be done. There may never be a game. And not many people will be able to get refunds.
I hate group responsibility and being accused of something I didn't do.
I still don't see how stating, matter-of-factly, what game company's promises were and how many of them were fulfilled until now is malicious. Please explain how can you be even more objective and non-toxic than that.
I don't see it as holding CIG to every single promise, but as removing any kind of bias that would be created if only selected features were listed. The problem isn't with CIG not making some crossbow or some other cross-promotional thing until now, but with one of their employees saying on some Youtuber's video that private servers are the last thing that will be made ever, long after release. That information has quite an impact, but at the same time buried deep in some video that no more than a thousand people have watched.
By the way, there are other, similiar sites, made by admitted fans of the game, such as scqa.info with transcripts of some of the Q&A videos. Hell, it's close to Q&A transcripts of FDev videos on Reddit.
Edit: Now I have thought about it a bit and I think I am a bit surprised that you have focused on criticizing one of the more impartial pieces of information linked here, not straight "CIG is incompetent, lol" bashing that shows up here from time to time.
Last edited:
Who would of thought, in order to make a groundbreaking space game, you would have to plan ahead? This is revolutionary stuff here from the geniuses at CIG. [haha]
lions led by a sheep
I try to be mature. I use the sternest and most mature avatar. I say nice things about the game when I see nice things. There are obviously a large number of talented people on the Star Citizen team.
But when I see the management make such spectacularly comic pratfalls like stealing Hello Kitty, and this incredibly ill-conceived referral competition, it's hard for me to contain my inner Nelson Muntz
..."Ha ha!"
I try to be mature. I use the sternest and most mature avatar. I say nice things about the game when I see nice things. There are obviously a large number of talented people on the Star Citizen team.
But when I see the management make such spectacularly comic pratfalls like stealing Hello Kitty, and this incredibly ill-conceived referral competition, it's hard for me to contain my inner Nelson Muntz
..."Ha ha!"
I am offended by your allegation that gamers complain all the time, and wish to complain about it!
But yes. Thing is there's justified and unjustified complaints. A feature completion tracker can not be unjustified. Also remember when i complained that LOD lacked proper gunfire feedback to the player? Hardly what you could call destructive criticism.
Complaints can be a source of improvement. They shouldn't be the only source though. FD, take note
SC has a lot riding on 3.0, but even in the best case scenario they are late and they overpromised, bigtime.
You've entirely misread everything that I have said and you also apparently can't see the anti Star Citizen supporter sentiment in this thread. In development the team that works on it are responsible for their individual parts, management is responsible for project managing and bringing it all together. The two are separate and should be treated as such. (in my opinion of course). I'm not rebutting the critique, just suggesting a moderation on the delivery. It's my opinion, if you don't like it, nothing is forcing you to read it.
- Status